while non-christians do good and go to hell

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Underground is right, you’ll have to look away from the bible if you want god to be the one to create the universe… it just doesn’t make sense…

i’m just wondering, if god created all around, that would mean he is indeed, all-powerfull right?
but why would he then make it possible that people explain the world around themselves, without giving him a place in it?
or wouldn’t he want us to believe he exists?
what do you think?
(i realize if there would be a god, his ways would be indeed, mysterious, but nevertheless…)

willem

22

One step ahead of you.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=139697 :wink:

I was reading recently about a man who came to a rabbi and asked him why did god create/allow athiesm? Why doesn’t he make himself unquestionably known to us? The rabbi replied athiesm is one of gods greatest gifts. The man was outraged at how such a holy man could say such a blasphemes thing. The rabbi responded is it not because of athiesm that you will go out and help humanity and not wait for god to do it? When enemies atack your family are you going to wait for god to help you or are you going to defend yourself?

23

These are all very valid points. However I have a few general questions.
Okay, the rule is angels cannot marry, then if they did, they would be sinning against God. This being so if one believes they have free will, but they must because of 2Peter. I guess I can’t get over the angels sinning
part ecspecially before the flood. However, the point about sons of god being rulers of corrupt kingdoms makes sense also. Yet, it did say Nephilium were on the earth in those days-and afterward, and that was before the flood, when everyone was destroyed. So the Bible is already giving us some foresight there. Someone from Noahs clan had to be a father to Nephilium in order for “afterwards” which makes the kings and rulers thoery hold water. I will have to do more digging and see if not angels marrying humans, then what did the angels do when they sinned as in 2Peter.

To say evolution doesn’t fit Genesis, maybe not now, but what if scientist find thoery later that prove otherwise. Archaeology isn’t like math.
Math 1plus1 is always two. Its not approxiamately two or near two. That is why the evidence found to classify the stages of evolution are not as absolute to me. think about this,

Does one bit of study, observation and experiment, count towards another?
What happens if a scientist goes through the scentific process and makes it out with evidence that dissproves another study? That’s happening all of the time in the medical world. Therefore is this process flawed?
Im not a mathmatician but math seems to be absolute. Only human error can disprove that 1 plus 1 equals two.
So with regard to evolution, is it only by human study through a flawed system that standarizes date and times of what happened? As in the medical world?

24

Peter may say what he likes in the gospel but until you back up what he says in the Torah I have no choice but to reject his claim.

Again the biggest point of all this is that if Angels have freewill God is not the only diety. Therefore this is no longer monotheism.

I think my arguments have been strong enough to rest my case. Good day.

25

Hi Heather,

Matthew 5:18 For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.

You are getting in a bit of a tiswas through all of your Bible quoting - you should really get away from the evangelical interpretation and consider jewish or modern interpretations that compare the Bible with other sources.

Things are not what they seem to be and that isn’t wrong just because we want the world to be so clear cut. God remains a mystery and there are a million things that go wrong with your evangelical views even if you follow your own arguments.

Scripture guides us, but you must ask yourself whether you can transport statements out of a foreign culture through several languages into the modern day without having to adapt to thousands of years of development. To take the Bible literally means you don’t take it seriously.

Taking the Bible seriously means finding out what was orginally meant, what jewish traditions arose out of the stories and how did the christian traditions become so different. You will find that it was always a reaction against something that gave the direction for the next theological development. And if you are critical of some of the modern theologians, take a look at the so called Church Fathers and understand that they had a far worse chance of reaching the truth than you do today, but their opinion is almost holy.

There are those who claim to be faithful to the Bible (generally in the translation they prefer) but that is to my mind more heretical than being critical of the Bible. The Bible is not God, it is not a dictation of God’s mind, it is a collection of observations and needs to be taken seriously as such. That way it can help us discern the Spirit of life.

Shalom
Bob

26

bob has a point, but imo, no interpretation can be (entirely) correct…
and even if it were interpretated correctly that leaves us with an message alone, an important message perhaps, but never an absolute truth…

27

As I have said in earlier posts, my mother’s family is Jewish by a Great grandfather. I have relatives who are Jewish and I have studied with Messianic Jews. Yet I don’t agree with your view that to take the Bible literally you can’t take it seriously. I am very serious about my religion and my interpretation of the Bible, and I try to be honest for my own truth. Through my personal study with Jews and with evangicals, I hold interpretations of the Bible as everyone else does. So for me, if I make a comment, it is based on my own interpretation of the Bible and the studies I have had with that particular subject. I think every single person has a unique and intimate view of scripture. I have never met two people with the exact same take on every chapter of the Bible. But I am still young so who knows? But speaking on behalf of a Gentile, and in light of Johns gospel, I stand by my expression that the old laws that were for the Jews under covenants, that didn’t even apply to Gentiles, were “thrown out” for Christ accepting Jews after the Ressurection of Christ. Thats what I have come to believe. I apologize if it steps on your personal interpretation, yet I respect your desire to let me know.
Peace accepting and with love,
Heather

28

In any case, however I have been guided by evangical or Jewish, The Bible has done what it needed to do in my life. I thouroughly enjoy it and I love learning and re-learning. I feel in my heart and in my life, God is well-pleased with me and my learning, either way I have been taught.

29

That sounds good so far - it really is a question of whether you utilise the advantage you have by thinking things through in your own mind and not just latching straight on to what others say,

If I were to write something to you that was full of metaphers and illustrations of what I meant, you would hardly go ahead and interpret them literally - but if you would, you wouldn’t take me seriously.

I hold the opinion that second or third generation Christians did something like this - especially when the ‘authorities’ - the Apostles - had died. More than that, in the struggle for influence in the early church, some things became a ‘proof’ of faith that are contradictory to common experience. Only those willing to believe in these things were accepted Christians.

Whereas it may keep a house in order, it is extremely contra-productive in the long run. It has led to a Church History that is full of shame and has damaged any ‘witness’ you and I - or any Christian - could express for Christ gravely. I know that some evangelicals say that the ‘proof’ of their faith is their trust in the Holy Spirit to overcome even these problems, but it seems a little bit like Paul’s argument in Romans (6:1):
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? You know his answer…

What I am trying to say - though not so eloquently as I would like to, is that we need to handle the diversity of early Christianity openly and honestly, the more it becomes known and not stick to orthodox views as though they were dictated by God. Your quotations were a sign that you were doing that.

As for your integrity - I wouldn’t want to put that it question. My statement was purely aimed at your practise of quoting the Bible, knowing that there are diverse interpretations.

There are certainly laws that were never intended for Gentiles - you are right there. But the Law is the sign of the covenant and a method by which even ‘Messiac Jews’ can show that they remain in the covenant. It isn’t prerequisite of redemption, but it is the expression of covenant life.

What signs do you have for God being ‘well-pleased’ ? I find it interesting that very often modern Christians take success and abundance to be a sign of God’s grace and approval, despite the fact that many Christians in the early years of the Church ‘failed’ on human terms as do many Christians in third-world countries.

Shalom
Bob

30

According to the Bible, yes. Because people who just act good are not doing it for the right reasons. They just want to go to heaven, or get the feeling that comes with having helped someone else.

31

the bible sais that?

32

Opps! Sorry about that. I copied a small paragraph I had written in a post on another forum. I did the CTRL-C/CTRL-V thing, but it must have left out a huge section. Dang! :wink:

No, no, no. The Bible had nothing to do with this (yet, at least). That part that I posted was my personal opinion (and not all of my opinion, at that).

Lemme see if I can go back to my other forum, and re-copy it. :wink:

33

In Dantes Divine Comedy Virgil does not get to enter higher levels of heaven because he lived before the time of Christ. Virgil was symbolized for the highest virtues.

Prior to the time of Christ then gentiles had no chance of redemption, does that not seem a bit unfair and stupid? Did god create them merly to suffer and then go to hell, whether they were virtuous or not? What a benevolent god! And people who live in ignorance of Christ who are virtuous are also apprantly virtuous for the wrong reasons and will be sent to hell?

34

Matthew:
[i]25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.[/i]

Please remember, these verses must be taken in their appropriate context, not individually. :wink:

35

Care to explaine those verses to me I have no idea what they imply or mean and how they apply to this context.

36

Oh, sorry about that–I didn’t mean to leave you hanging there.

Basically, these verses (below) is Jesus describing what will happen at the Judgment Day, when He seperates those who go to heaven (sheep) from those whgo go to hell (goats)

Jesus is basically saying to the Christians, “Your good works that you did in life were done in honor of me.”

To the non-saved (goats) He says, “You guys did many good deeds in my name, but, because you do not posess true saving faith, your good works merit you nothing.”

Read this (soory it’s long):

[i]25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

[b]25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.[/b]

25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.[/i] :wink:

37

Hi BMW-Guy,

I’m sorry, but I would at least expect you to read what is written, and not just make it up as you go along. Perhaps you should stick to your cars.

Matthew
25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then will he sit upon the throne of his glory:
25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
To set the scene: All nations are gathered at the end of time and people are divided into two different groups. One on his right and one on his left. The prophecy has a rhetorical sense in being a warning and a guide for the church.

25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Notice, there is no mention of any such “true saving faith” but of acts of compassion. There isn’t even a mention of intentional good deeds - far more Christ measures mankind by what they do spontaneously out of compassion with the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. He takes the deeds done for the “least of the brethren” as deeds done to or for God.

The argument is therefore the opposite of what you are saying. In fact, although the implication is there by the fact that it is addressed to Christians, there isn’t even a prerequisite that the righteous be Christians or Jews. So really this text is an argument against the proposition made.

And of course, prophecy is not always a pre-diction, but a proclaimation of will. Sometimes Christ (and the Prophets) asked people what they could expect themselves if God would behave as they thought he should towards others, or as people in Power behave. He didn’t state that this would be so, but that by human standards, God would have the right to incarcerate and even execute many of the “righteous” who were not compassionate - although they knew what God’s will was.

The heavy reading in the Bible (especially NT) is generally heavy on the believer, not the Gentile. The purpose of God is however declared to be to save Mankind from their idolatry and illusion and return them to their assignment as Children (sons) of God.

Shalom
Bob

38

Um, Okay…

  1. I know that the Goats/Sheep thing is a figurative prophesy. I was just trying to explain it to UnderGround.

  2. The passages I quote should be taken in context with the rest of the NT. Not as a few lines of verses. Neither You nor I could adequetely post the passages (that I had posted) in their complete context. It is simple just too much to post. True saving faith is implied. Faith without works is dead. And works by themselves obviously avail nothing in God’s eyes. So, in order for “an act of compassion to be done unto God when it is done to the least of these”, their must be the presence of faith in the person’s heart. Otherwise, he could care less about what God thinks.

  3. The purpose of God is ALWAYS to magnify His own Glory—not to save anyone. God, however, has decided to find His glory in saving a people. But it is not for the people’s sake that He saves them.

:wink:

39

Hi BMW-Guy,

Are you ignoring what is written, or haven’t you seen it yet? You are quoting Paul and Jesus but ignoring that Jesus looked for trust in God whereas Paul is implementing faith as the ‘only’ prerequisite for salvation, and that more as an act of acceptance or rather receptance of grace in opposition to the observance of the law as a means of forcing God’s hand. Those who argued this were really saying that Gentiles had to become Jews first and then, by observing the law, they would become acceptable. Paul argues that it isn’t observance but faith that saves Jews.

However, the latter made up only a minority and ‘works’ were never really a means of gaining redemption, but rather the expression of jewish faith. A faith that Jesus complained he was more likely to find in proselytes or foreigners than in Israel. The over-observance of the law was seen to be a lack of faith by Jesus. The compassionate showed more faith by the same measure - hence our text.

This implies at least that Gentiles, showing the faith that leads them to be compassionate, need no circumcision or other initiation as Jews (or Christians), but that God sees the hearts, not the deeds for themselves.

Save this Garbage for your prayer meetings - or better still, forget it altogether. Being compassionate and demanding compassion means that God is concerned. If not, then he has no right in demanding compassion from others … but that isn’t the case.

Shalom
Bob

40

With role models like that, who needs satan?